build_citation_graph

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely non-obvious context: the result is a top-cited sample rather than the complete network, and a 'truncated' flag signals incompleteness. It also defines edge direction (source cites target), which matters for interpreting results. It does not mention cost, latency, or rate limits for a potentially expensive traversal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and the return shape, with no filler sentences. Slight redundancy between 'top-cited sample, not the full network' and the 'truncated' flag note, which restate the same caveat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is mostly covered, and the description still usefully explains edge direction and the key_papers ranking. For a 4-parameter, open-world traversal tool the main omission is routing guidance against get_citations/get_references.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: depth and paper_id are documented in the schema, while direction and max_nodes have none. The description's 'bounded' language gestures at max_nodes/depth but adds no meaning for the direction enum or for how max_nodes trades off against truncation, so it does not compensate for the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Build a bounded citation graph around a seed paper' — and names the returned artifacts (nodes, edges, key_papers). It implies, but never states, how this differs from siblings like get_citations or get_references, so it stops short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'a quick way to find foundational work in a subfield' hints at the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance despite four closely related sibling tools (get_citations, get_references, find_related_papers).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.